Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's what your single payer healthcare funding would look like.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tanis143" data-source="post: 3713543" data-attributes="member: 43724"><p>The difference is that they are not designed to make money for the owner's or shareholders, so in other words are not profit driven but rather there to provide a service. Unlike right now where almost all pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded companies so are driven to maximize profits. That's not to mention the paten trolls. How many high profile stories in the last 10 years have you read where a patent troll snapped up a medical patent then skyrocketed the price of that drug to an astronomical amount? That is what I'm trying to prevent for all of the medical industry. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That is the damn problem and the point you are missing! All the supposed "fixes" are focusing on cheaper insurance rates INSTEAD of focusing on the real problem that the medical industry is pretty much more monopoly than free market, therefor they are given a free pass to charge anything they want and pass it on to insurance, who then passes it on to us, usually in a distributed cost, because once again medical insurance companies are all for the mighty profit margin. In the end its us consumers who get screwed. We don't have a choice here. Its like deciding if you want cable tv or not.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no free market. Again, that is the biggest problem. Just as one example (that I have already given and it was ignored completely) a set of 2 epipens was $92 before the 2007 acquisition of the patent. Fifteen years later it now costs $700 for a set. That is a 660% increase in price. The new generic version of it? That runs about $340, still a 270% increase. In a free market that would be impossible to achieve as consumers would switch to a lower price alternative or just not purchase it. Then the law of supply and demand would dictate that demand would go down, supply would stay constant so price would go down to compensate. You do NOT have that in the medical industry. The demand will be there regardless of the price as people NEED this product. So there is no free market with the medical industry, so it should not be treated us such. That is only logical.</p><p></p><p>As far your example of strong arming, you just proved my point. If I get in a wreck and go to the hospital I have no choice but to accept the services, regardless of the price. I don't get to pick who takes me to the hospital, I am not given a list of hospitals, their rates OR if I want those services unless my injuries are slight enough that I can refuse treatment. And, I can not negotiate the price of those services or look at lower priced alternatives. This type of strong arming is rife in the medical industry and not just limited to accidents.</p><p></p><p>With no regulation only the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare. Am I for complete government control? No. But, in the absence of a free market, there should be regulations on pricing to make a necessity affordable.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tanis143, post: 3713543, member: 43724"] The difference is that they are not designed to make money for the owner's or shareholders, so in other words are not profit driven but rather there to provide a service. Unlike right now where almost all pharmaceutical companies are publicly traded companies so are driven to maximize profits. That's not to mention the paten trolls. How many high profile stories in the last 10 years have you read where a patent troll snapped up a medical patent then skyrocketed the price of that drug to an astronomical amount? That is what I'm trying to prevent for all of the medical industry. That is the damn problem and the point you are missing! All the supposed "fixes" are focusing on cheaper insurance rates INSTEAD of focusing on the real problem that the medical industry is pretty much more monopoly than free market, therefor they are given a free pass to charge anything they want and pass it on to insurance, who then passes it on to us, usually in a distributed cost, because once again medical insurance companies are all for the mighty profit margin. In the end its us consumers who get screwed. We don't have a choice here. Its like deciding if you want cable tv or not. There is no free market. Again, that is the biggest problem. Just as one example (that I have already given and it was ignored completely) a set of 2 epipens was $92 before the 2007 acquisition of the patent. Fifteen years later it now costs $700 for a set. That is a 660% increase in price. The new generic version of it? That runs about $340, still a 270% increase. In a free market that would be impossible to achieve as consumers would switch to a lower price alternative or just not purchase it. Then the law of supply and demand would dictate that demand would go down, supply would stay constant so price would go down to compensate. You do NOT have that in the medical industry. The demand will be there regardless of the price as people NEED this product. So there is no free market with the medical industry, so it should not be treated us such. That is only logical. As far your example of strong arming, you just proved my point. If I get in a wreck and go to the hospital I have no choice but to accept the services, regardless of the price. I don't get to pick who takes me to the hospital, I am not given a list of hospitals, their rates OR if I want those services unless my injuries are slight enough that I can refuse treatment. And, I can not negotiate the price of those services or look at lower priced alternatives. This type of strong arming is rife in the medical industry and not just limited to accidents. With no regulation only the wealthy will be able to afford healthcare. Am I for complete government control? No. But, in the absence of a free market, there should be regulations on pricing to make a necessity affordable. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Here's what your single payer healthcare funding would look like.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
